The fallout from Hamas’ Oct. 7 rampage through Israel and the March 22 massacre at Crocus City Hall near Moscow are dreadful reminders of the potential outsized effect of terrorist attacks. The most effective attacks provoke intense emotions, especially fear and paranoia, which can trigger dramatic changes in a country’s foreign and domestic policies. In their haste to restore a sense of safety, leaders often order security responses that are not proportionate with the actual threat, whether that entails imprudent foreign wars or severe domestic crackdowns. Other times, they may attempt to downplay the threat or redirect public attention. Every country reacts its own way, even if it doesn’t really react at all.
Russia
Even the definition of terrorism varies between countries, reflecting their history, geography, social and institutional makeup, and more. Russia defines it as “an ideology of violence and the practice of influencing [official] decision-making … associated with intimidation of the population and (or) other forms of unlawful violent actions.” This definition is broad enough to cover the violent actions of secessionist groups and individuals from Russia’s North Caucasus, who have been the predominant perpetrators of terrorism in the country. For example, following their defeat in the Chechen wars and subsequent repression by the Kremlin, Chechen terrorists orchestrated the 2002 Moscow theater siege, the 2004 Beslan school siege and a 2004 suicide bombing in the Moscow Metro. Terrorists from the North Caucasus also conducted the 2010 Moscow Metro bombing and the 2011 bombing of Moscow’s Domodedovo airport.
No comments:
Post a Comment